9911796707
TMI Blog1972 (6) TMI 16X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ties we are satisfied that in this case the rule ought to be discharged. The dispute relates to an amount of Rs. 2,77,500 which the Income-tax Officer added back as the income of the assessee from undisclosed sources. The details regarding this amount are mentioned in paragraph 4 of the Income-tax Officer's order. The assessee's case was that these are genuine transactions of borrowings on hundies from various parties. The Income-tax Officer has himself said that "complete details have been furnished by the assessee in respect of loans from these bankers". The assessee had given the names, addresses and the amounts borrowed from each and every one of the persons to make up this amount of Rs. 2,77,500. The Income-tax Officer, however, wished ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Income-tax Officer had fallen but circumvented it. He appreciated the argument advanced as can be seen from the following passage. "It was submitted that for enforcing attendance of the hundi brokers the appellant had no powers ; on the contrary the Income-tax Officer had necessary powers to enforce the terms of summonses issued which he has failed to do." Now this submission was made on behalf of the assessee because the assessee desired that upon the evidence which he had led the decision of the Income-tax Officer should be reversed and that it should be held that the loans were genuine loans and could not be added back to the income of the assessee. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, however, avoided answering the argument adva ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l found that the following circumstances had been established : 1. That all the hundi loans taken by the assessee were through crossed cheques which had passed through recognized banks. 2. That those hundi loans were obtained through a broker whose name had been disclosed, namely, Messrs Madhvdas & Co. 3. That the brokerage was paid to this broker through a crossed cheque which had also passed through a bank. 4. That the interest on the loans was also paid through the respective bankers by cheques. 5. That the assessee had given the complete names and addresses of all the bankers who had advanced moneys to him and the amounts borrowed from them. All these bankers were themselves income-tax assessees and the present assessee had also gi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orded by the Income-tax Officer behind the back of the assessee cannot be used against the assessee because the assessee was not offered an opportunity to cross-examine those witnesses. The assessee has furnished documentary evidence in the shape of confirmatory letters from those bankers. The Income-tax Officer has not denied the genuineness of those letters and that evidence proves the genuineness and source of the cash credits." In our opinion, this finding given by the Tribunal was a pure finding of fact. The Tribunal also remarked that the Income-tax Officer had not brought on record any evidence to show that the evidence which the assessee had adduced was incorrect or untrue in any manner. That again shows that the finding arrived at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
